9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[Myriad]

No, that's not correct. Pancaking implies that the floors compact one on top of the other. This is clearly not seen in the collapse progression, or at Ground Zero, except for the one picture that Kent1 linked to of the floors in the basement. It would also, as I already stated, not explain the disappearance of the core structure, as the core structure would not be able to pancake

So you agree that pancaking did in fact occur during the collapse. Thank you for clearing that up.

But please, take up your pancaking objections with NIST. I'm sure they'd love to hear them.

I have no pancaking objections with NIST. NIST claims that no floors collapsed onto other floors (that is, pancaked) prior to the column failures that initiated collapse. I see no evidence to disagree with them on that point.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[uke2se]

You need to be able to show why the old hypothesis doesn't work in order to demonstrate the need for a new one.

Which NIST has done.

I have already outlined the main points that scientists and engineers have raised about this.

Nope, you haven't. The vast vast majority of scientists and engineers are in complete agreement with NIST.

In this very thread. None of you have been able to refute these.

All of it has been refuted, time and time again. Now are you going to start presenting evidence soon?

Evidence count for ergo: still zero.

 

[ergo]

I have no pancaking objections with NIST. NIST claims that no floors collapsed onto other floors (that is, pancaked) prior to the column failures that initiated collapse. I see no evidence to disagree with them on that point.

Actually, that's also incorrect. As pgimeno points out in his link to NCSTAR 1-3C Damage and Failure Modes, p.117, 167 in PDF:

This may be a result of overloading the lower floors as the floors above were "pan-caking."

 

[ergo]

Which NIST has done.

Thank you. So you agree that the FEMA pancaking model was discarded by NIST.

Nope, you haven't. The vast vast majority of scientists and engineers are in complete agreement with NIST.

The vast, vast majority of scientists and engineers don't have the time to thoroughly examine it, and many of them probably don't want to rock the boat and potentially be ostracized socially and professionally.

All of it has been refuted, time and time again.

Not in this thread.

 

[uke2se]

Thank you. So you agree that the FEMA pancaking model was discarded by NIST.

As Myriad has already informed you, NIST claims that no floors collapsed onto other floors (that is, pancaked) prior to the column failures that initiated collapse. NIST's models work.

The vast, vast majority of scientists and engineers don't have the time to thoroughly examine it, and many of them probably don't want to rock the boat and potentially be ostracized socially and professionally.

Ah yes, everyone secretly agrees with the conspiracy nutjobs but are too afraid to say so. Yeah, that's completely rational.

Not in this thread.

Yes, even in this thread. Also, in the vast majority of other threads in this subforum. While you might not have been here for too long (although it's still probable that you're the dishonest sockpuppet of a previously banned twoofer), this has been going on for a number of years. The twoof-movement hasn't produced anything of note for 9 years. Certainly no evidence for anything they have asserted. Are you going to break the mold? Are you going to present some evidence?

Evidence count for ergo: still zero.

 

[carlitos]

No hypothesis
No math
No evidence

Par for the course, really.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I was not missing your point, I explained to you why the subject of pancaking, which I couldn't care less about, was raised in this thread. Pancaking may be what we (intelligent people) would expect of a steel-framed building collapse. But the core would not be able to pancake, so we would see it still standing, as we do with the Windsor Hotel fire in Madrid.
...

The core didn't pancake. It stood, in both towers, for seconds after the main collapses.

These cores are called "spires" in this condition. You can even see them on Gage's DVD!

My question to truthers: hey, weren't those columns supposed to have been destroyed with SuperDooperNanoHushaBoomThermite?

That's some mighty wimpy thermite, there.

 

[ergo]

As Myriad has already informed you, NIST claims that no floors collapsed onto other floors (that is, pancaked) prior to the column failures that initiated collapse

I'm not sure what point either of you would be trying to make in claiming this. If collapse hasn't begun, then, no, obviously the floors couldn't yet pancake. Right? What's your point??

Yes, even in this thread.

If you could point me to the posts which address my points, I would appreciate.
- There is no upper block evident through the collapse progression
- Crush-up would occur before crush down, in accordance with Newton's Third Law
- Rubble cannot crush through a 90-storey building
- and "crushing" is not a correct description of what we observe.

If not, I'll take it as agreement that none of these points has been convincingly refuted here.

 

[ergo]

My question to truthers: hey, weren't those columns supposed to have been destroyed with SuperDooperNanoHushaBoomThermite?

Hey, weren't those core columns supposed to have been destroyed by the mysterious upper block??

 

[uke2se]

I'm not sure what point either of you would be trying to make in claiming this. If collapse hasn't begun, then, no, obviously the floors couldn't yet pancake. Right? What's your point??

My point is obvious. NIST claims that no pancaking occured prior to the collapse.

If you could point me to the posts which address my points, I would appreciate.

No.

- There is no upper block evident through the collapse progression

Evident for you.

- Crush-up would occur before crush down, in accordance with Newton's Third Law

Present your mathematical proof.

- Rubble cannot crush through a 90-storey building

Present your mathematical proof.

- and "crushing" is not a correct description of what we observe.

Cite a credible source for this.

If not, I'll take it as agreement that none of these points has been convincingly refuted here.

None of these points have been convincingly made, so none of them need to be refuted here or elsewhere.

Now, are you going to make present evidence for these points? Are you going to do it now or wait a bit longer? As it is -

Evidence count for ergo: remarkably still zero.

 

[alienentity]

My claim is that the Bazant/NIST hypothesis, .. is incorrect and is inadequate as an explanation. There is no upper block evident through the collapse progression;

Wrong. Denial of facts is not a smart argument anyway.

crush-up would occur before crush down, in accordance with Newton's Third Law;

Baloney. Show the math.

rubble cannot crush through a 90-storey building;

More horsefeathers. It's a strawman argument since there is no evidence that the entire upper block was reduced to rubble before crushing the structure below, but assuming that the crush front contained a large mass of accumulated rubble, this mass was accelerating rapidly (about 2/3 g) and gaining mass simultaneously, so:

increased rubble +
increased speed = more bad news for the structure below, and fatally bad news for whatever strange and unscientific claims you are making.

I'll assume you'll go into denial mode now, so I won't bother responding further. Suffice to say you have zero evidence to support the claims you just made, and that's good enough for me.

buh bye.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

For about the billionth time:

NIST doesn't speak towards whether floors "pancaked" during the collapse because they don't speak towards the collapse at all. They speak towards collapse initiation. What happens after the collapse starts is another thing entirely. So the proper answer to the whole notion of NIST "tossing out" the idea of "pancaking collapse" progression is to note that the person saying that does not understand and has misrepresented the NIST findings to begin with, and is not discussing the NIST model at all.

Until these conspiracy addicts start identifying and discussing events that actually did occur on that day, instead of fictionalized truther substitutions for them, there is nothing to talk about. They're not discussing the collapse, nor are they even accurately representing the "Official Story". They're discussing a fiction.

------

And as a minor pedantic point: Pancaking is probably an oversimplification of what happens post initiation anyway. The reality is that debris is impacting the floors, and it's not clear whether those floors gave as a unit, failed in such a way as to cantilever, or broke in even more complex ways. Regardless, what actually happened is a very chaotic series of impacts severing floor-to-column connections, as well as column to column ones. And not all of those failures need to be straight down; imagine a truss giving way on one side that creates a basic "cantilever". Imagine it pulling and "pivoting" the column it's still connected to around the point where it connects to the column below. There's a failure also occuring at that column-to-column pivot point. It's not necessarily a motion that's "straight" down, but in the end it is part of an overall progression towards the ground. The point here is that even "pancaking" collapse is very much an abstraction, and the reality is even more complex than that. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[alienentity]

Ergo - next time there's an avalanche or landslide, make sure you stand in front of it to show how little energy it contains.

 

[Myriad]

Actually, that's also incorrect. As pgimeno points out in his link to NCSTAR 1-3C Damage and Failure Modes, p.117, 167 in PDF:

That citation does not support your claim. It is describing the damage to structural members from below the impact zone, which can only have occurred during the collapse. This does not contradict that NIST did not find pancaking prior to the progressive collapse, as I correctly stated before.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ergo]

My point is obvious. NIST claims that no pancaking occured prior to the collapse.

Neither does FEMA. Why? Because pancaking wouldn't be occurring before collapse!

"Debunker" logic is at the very least, amusing.

 

[Lyrandar]

Just out of curiosity, here's a question for you, ergo: can you think of anything which you would count as a refutation of any one of your ideas, and if so what is it? I might do better if I know exactly what type of evidence/argument you're looking for.

(This assumes that there is anything you can think of, which I kind of doubt at this point.)

 

[ergo]

Ergo - next time there's an avalanche or landslide, make sure you stand in front of it to show how little energy it contains.

Alien, next time there's an avalanche or landslide, stand there and watch to see whether it comes toward you, or "crushes" vertically downward through the rock and earth, in other words, through the path of greatest resistance.

 

[BigAl]

Alien, next time there's an avalanche or landslide, stand there and watch to see whether it comes toward you, or "crushes" vertically downward through the rock and earth, in other words, through the path of greatest resistance.

Irrelevant to the discussion of momentum and the collapse of the WTC towers.

 

[uke2se]

Neither does FEMA. Why? Because pancaking wouldn't be occurring before collapse!

"Debunker" logic is at the very least, amusing.

It seemed you had trouble understanding the simple fact that NIST doesn't discuss the collapse because their aim was to explain collapse initiation, and as such didn't talk about pancaking. This is more a question of "twoofer" logic than anything.

 

[ergo]

Just out of curiosity, here's a question for you, ergo: can you think of anything which you would count as a refutation of any one of your ideas, and if so what is it? I might do better if I know exactly what type of evidence/argument you're looking for.

Sure, any example in our physical universe in which something is crushed down vertically by a smaller top portion of itself.

And an example or explanation of how rubble can crush through a 90-storey building in under 13 seconds.

There's probably more, but that's good for now...